WLUSU BOD March 23-2012 Agenda Package

Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union

Meeting of the Board of Directors

Location:Date:

Start Duration Agenda Item Type Person2:30 PM 0:01 Call to Order adm Chair Walker2:31 PM 0:01 Adoption of Agenda D Chair Walker

Adoption of the Consent Agenda

Adoption of the Minutes - March 2, 2012

2:32 PM 0:01 Regrets adm Chair Walker

2:34 PM 0:03 Comments from the Chairman of the Board & CGO f/i Chair Walker

2012/13 Student Executive

Annual Report

Year End Board Social

Student Life Levy

2:37 PM 0:03 Comments from the President & CEO f/i President Gibson

2:40 PM 0:30 Committee Reports

Brantford Campus Council f/i Councilor Faessler

Ownership Linkage f/i Director Pryce

Student Senator and Governor Outreach f/i Director Chan

EL 2d Board Direct Inspection f/i Director Papanstasiou

EL 2h Review D Chair Walker

Post Elections Review D Chair Walker

3:10 PM 0:05 Approval of the 2011-2012 Auditor D Chair Walker

3:15 PM 0:15 Referenda Report D Chair Walker

3:30 PM 0:10 Monitoring Report EL 2k - Lobbying and Advocacy D President Gibson

3:40 PM 0:05 Monitoring Report Resubmission EL 2a - Treatment of Consumers D President Gibson

3:45 PM 0:05 Monitoring Report Resubmission EL 2j - Hiring Practices - Unpaid Staff D President Gibson

3:50 PM 0:05 Monitoring Report GP 2f - Board Committee Principles D Chair Walker

3:55 PM 0:15 Proposed Executive Limitation - Transition of Staff D Chair Walker

4:10 PM 0:05 New Business & Announcements f/i

4:15 PM 0:01 Adjournment adm Chair Walker

Total 1:45

WLUSU Boardroom, 2nd Floor FNCCFriday, March 23, 2012

Access

Our Vision: "WLUSU will be the leader in support and advocacy for all students"

Our Mission:

"WLUSU enhances the holistic student experience at Wilfrid Laurier University by

providing innovative resources and effective representation within a safe and empowering campus community"

Our Values:

Diversity

Community

Safety

Sustainability

Representation

Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Board of Directors Friday March 2, 2012 WLUSU Boardroom, 2rd Floor FNCC Minutes of Meeting

Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Board of Directors Meeting

_______________________________________________________________ Present: Andrew Chudnovsky, Jon Collaton, Zach Desson, Luke Dotto,

Noah Habtemichael, Chris Oberle, Tom Papanastasiou, Jon Pryce, Ryan Sher, Chris Walker

Regrets: Sunny Chan, Scott Fleming, Nick Nyhof, Jennifer Solda Guests: Sean Madden, Michael Onabolu

1. Call to Order

The meeting was called to order at 3:39 p.m. 2. Amendments & Adoption of Agenda The agenda was adopted by consent and the adjournment time of the

February 10th meeting will be changed to 6:51 p.m. from 4:51 p.m. 3. Regrets: Regrets are noted from Directors Chan, Fleming, Nyhoff and Solda 4. Comments from the Chair: Student Life Levy – Committee members meeting on Tuesday Annual Report from CGO and Referendum Questions – report to come

forward Change in Date for next meeting - Due to CASA meeting, the March 16th

meeting will be moved to March 23rd Fall Reading Week Discussion – presentation will be made March 23rd 5. Comments from President:

Faculty Negotiations – University and Faculty Association have reached a tentative deal as of this morning. The Board of Governors and WLUFA will have to ratify the deal going forward.

Proposed Restructuring Changes – there will be a full announcement by next week


6. Committee Reports:

Brantford Campus Council – the restructuring report has been finished, hope Directors have had a chance to review the document. Work with study space usage and library council have also been continuing. Ownership Linkage – met last night and would like to come up with questions, in line with the ends, that would be used in the next few focus groups. Need to advertise the meetings better to draw more people. March 8th there will be a focus group in Brantford, more information to follow on the location and time. Post Elections Review Committee – met prior to reading week to discuss how we want to proceed. The members agreed to the recommendation of the chair to create a governance process policy. Chairman Walker is in the process of drafting the language to discuss with the Committee and bring back to the Board for the final meeting in March EL # 2h Review – committee was tasked with drafting language to differentiate between expected vs. unexpected leave. Chairman Walker met with Catherine Raso today, and she will provide some recommendations for the Committee. The Committee will meet again next week and a final report should be ready for the March 23rd meeting. EL #2d Board Direct Inspection – the Committee met on Monday and everything looks good so far, but are waiting for some evidence from the President on one of the sections and will provide a report when that is received.

7. Monitoring Report EL# 2i – Environmental Sustainability:

President Gibson indicated the report took some time to review and interpret but thought that we were not in a bad spot. He would like to see improvement on some areas of compliance such as procurement and consumer products purchased. MOTION (Pryce/Oberle) to create a Board Direct Inspection Committee on EL #2i

In Favour: 9 Opposed: 0 Abstained: 0

Motion passes unanimously Nominations for the Committee were put forward:


Desson nominates Pryce – accepted Dotto nominates Oberle – accepted Habtemichael nominates Sher – accepted With no further nominations, the process was closed and the following motion was put forward: MOTION (Chudnovsky/Desson): to acclaim Directors Pryce, Oberle and Sher to the BDI Committee for EL #2i


Motion passes MOTION (Oberle/Collaton) to approve monitoring report EL # 2i


Motion passes unanimously 8. Monitoring Report GP #2d – Chair of the board and CGO:

Chairman Walker reviewed the report and indicated the areas of compliance, it was noted that section GP 2d #2 should be compliant now but it was not updated. The first cycle of monitoring has been completed and the Chairman has followed the governance monitoring process as set out by the board. It is also noted that the Chair and Vice Chair have been communicating more so that they are in compliance if the Vice Chair ever had to take over the Chair role. MOTION (Collaton/Sher) to approve Monitoring Report GP #2d as presented.


Motion passes unanimously

9. Monitoring Report GP #2e – Vice Chair’s Role:


Chairman Walker indicated this report is still compliant in the areas previously indicated and that the one area of non-compliance, meeting with the CGO and Chair regularly has changed to compliant. A number of sections have been removed from the Vice-Chair job description and that has been reflected as well. MOTION (Desson/Sher) to approve Monitoring Report GP #2e as presented.



10. New Business and Announcements:

Director Oberle informed members there is an Arts Formal on March 15th, tickets are $5.00 at the U-Desk and it is a three course meal with entertainment. The event is open to all students. Year End Board Social – a suggestion to go curling was put forward. Chairman Walker will investigate the Granite Club and report back to the board.

11. Adjourn: MOTION (Collaton/Sher) to adjourn the meeting at 4:02 p.m. In Favour: 9

Opposed: 0 Abstained: 0


fi, For Information fd, For Discussion D, Decision required adm, Administrative task

MOTION (): To approve the report as presented.


In Favour: Opposed: Abstained:

Motion passes unanimously The preceding reflects an accurate and complete record of the proceedings at the aforementioned meeting of the WLUSU Board of Directors. __________________________ __________________________ Chris Walker Nick Nyhof Chair of the Board & Chief Governance Officer Vice Chairman of the Board 2011-12 WLUSU BOD 2011-12 WLUSU BOD

1

Jon Pryce

Director

Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union 75 University Ave. W., Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5 Tel: 519.884.0710 ext. 3333

Email: [email protected]

Website: www.wlusu.com

To: Board of Directors

CC: Chris Walker; Chair of the Board & CGO, Nick Gibson; President & CEO

Date: March 23th, 2012

Re: Ownership Linkage Focus Groups

Directors,

Many of the issues or areas of improvement that students touched upon were operational

in nature and thus out of the purview of the BOD. However, there is value in passing on

this information to the incoming President & CEO for careful consideration. Safety

seemed to be a fairly contentious issue on both campuses, which is reflected in the

document.

Many of the students who attended these focus groups had similar although slightly

altered interpretations of the Ends to that of the current President & CEO. What the BOD

should do in the future is clearly convey the interpretation of the organization's Ends to

the students to maintain uniformity.

In terms of moving forward, I feel that the focus groups are valuable and provide a great

opportunity to engage in a targeted and meaningful conversation with students. We

should keep the focus groups, but we need to rebrand them and market them more

effectively. This will ensure that students are able to voice their concerns and desires on

a consistent basis. Also, focus group promotion needs to be a director-wide initiative, as

their value and capacity can help develop a strong relationship between students and their

representatives. All directors should experience moderating a focus group at least one

time during their time in office. The Ownership Linkage Committee should be tasked

with planning, spearheading the marketing of, and doing the background work for all of

these focus groups, but all directors should be involved in some capacity.

Overall, the Ends of the organization seem to represent the needs of students. It is

important to note, however, that there is a bias in the samples we have done, as the

attendees were either involved in the Students' Union in some capacity. We should work

towards getting more of the "owners" out to these events to provide higher quality to the

focus groups.

Respectfully Submitted,

Jon Pryce

Director

Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.wlusu.com/

2

Final Report for BOD Focus Groups

Part I: Interpretations of Ends

Part II: Areas of Improvement

Part III: Recommendations for Focus Groups / BOD

Part IV: Appendices

Part I: Interpreting the Ends

End One: Advocacy and Representation:

Defined with the word “comfortable” in mind

Constant flow of communication so that students know what WLUSU and WLU

are up to

Making sure student voice is heard by “bigger powers” that are outside of our

direct control (e.g. provincial government, lobby organizations)

End Two: Safe and Empowering Environment

Being able to get involved “without being judged or prosecuted against”

Some students feel that they are capable of effecting change (empowering)

Have a generally safe feeling on campus; Foot Patrol is doing a good job

An environment that has inclusion, collaboration and team work

Not feeling safe is a barrier for education; need to always have it

End Three: Diverse Social Interaction

Being able to communicate with different types of students

Providing programming that responds to the diverse needs of students

Creating a “friendly atmosphere” on campus

Providing “support” on each campus

Collaborative student leadership should be highlighted- make sure it’s multi-

campus, too.

End Four: Economic Environment Cognizant and Responsive to Student Needs

Wanting students to get the most out of their education without finances being a

barrier

Offering economically sound programming events and other initiatives on campus

Providing healthy and economically viable food options on campus (Big)

Part II: Areas of Improvement **Note: There are many operational recommendations in here. As Directors, let’s remain cognizant of

this and focus on high-level means for improvement

3

End One: Advocacy and Representation:

Debating whether Sustainability (Environmental, in particular) should be an End

or whether it’s included in this End.

“Advocacy” needs to be more clearly defined to students

Communicate all of the great lobbying initiatives that are being done for students

Directors need to be more transparent on both campuses

Create personal relationships with people on campus through effective

representation

Generally, WLUSU is doing a good job on this End

End Two: Safe and Empowering Environment

Need to do a better job of informing people about safety on campus (Big)

ResLife safety is problematic (out of our control, but something to consider)

Good initiatives, but need to follow through on more matters. A need for more

gender neutral washrooms, free self-defense classes, more trans-gender policies

Security cameras and emergency poles are not effective means for monitoring

safety

Expand safety bracket to off campus venues (within a few blocks). WLUSU

shouldn’t just provide safety on campus.

Reach out to the diversity office for forms of training

Turret security is lacking

WLUSU should be “more discerning” when creating promo material

Bar at Brantford that should be owned by students? Make them feel more

included / safer

On Brantford’s campus, some students claim that they do not feel safe taking Foot

Patrol home

Direct connection with students via peer-to-peer means. Always ensure that these

are in place and improved upon


O-Week needs to be more inclusive. Always remain cognizant of diverse student

needs (in more than just meal options)

Promote more academic development; this tends to get forgotten in programming

Expand communication mechanisms. Email is insufficient

Provide more programming for introverted students (not just extraverted)

Finding a balance between school work and fun is a challenge and needs to be

addressed better

Target commuter students (especially on Brantford campus)

More daytime opportunities are needed

End Four: Economic Environment Cognizant and Responsive to Student Needs

Longer meal hours

Meal plan is a huge economic burden

Better advertising of outreach initiatives (Food Bank)

4

Make bursaries and scholarships more accessible

Advertising OSAP more

Helping students understand economic and how to be responsible (Big)

o More workshops / open forum / financial fair

More transparency when it comes to where student money is going

Better prices are Wilfs to cater to student needs ($5 food option would help

students afford food)

Part III: Recommendations for Focus Groups / BOD

Focus Groups

Keep them going because they are valuable

Good way to communicate directly with students

Change name to “BOD Squad” or “Hawk Talks”

Employ a market research project to compliment these findings

More effective marketing is needed. Students don’t know about them.

Less complicated language on the Facebook pages

More advertising on WLUSU.com

Document / film some of these groups to allow students to see the benefits

Ensure that there is consistency throughout all of the sessions

BOD

Stream meetings to allow students to see their directors / partake in discussion via

online means

More videos after meetings for debriefing – allow students to get a synopsis of the

meetings

Be present on each campus more

Create a Rumour Mill: “What’s Everyone Hawking About”

Marketing BOD meetings more

BOD should latch onto already existing initiatives; provide support and show that

they are engaged in the community (Laurier)

Remember to focus on students who aren’t part of the “clique” – expand

connection to all students

Create a hashtag campaign – provide more effective social media initiatives, as

most students are connected in social networks

5

Part IV: Appendices

APPENDIX A: First Year Focus Group

Focus Group:

Attendance: 4 first years

General Improvements

One hour session

Simplify language

Promote the Ends more

Wave 1: General Suggestions

Attendance: 1 student

Including a 5th

End on Sustainability?

Sustainability is a means to an End

Matt: End – sustainable campus at the End

Nick: Falls under the first End – Representation and Advocacy

Matt: Providing the needs for the students should embody Environmental

Sustainability

Nick: Challenge: Have a good transition to allow Environmental Sustainability

at the fore; Ensure that Presidents are incorporating it in their interpretation;

Focus on the EL and ensure that it is being upheld properly.


Attendance: 4 first years

First End: Good job of it

Second End: Without being judged or prosecuted against and comfortable

o Circular issue when disputes arise in ResLife

o Need for more support groups? Dons lack power? Dons need to have that

power so that they can provide mediation?

o Bullying in residence – an issue for safety

o Better job of teaching people about campus safety

Third End: Being able to communicate with different types of people

o Laurier does a good job at orienting people

o Friendly atmosphere

o Do they benefit from events they get involved in? House council helps

people get out to do stuff. Comfort.

o Good balance of different opportunities, that aren’t alcoholic?

Better marketing is needed / more awareness

Get involved fairs are good – allows people to see involvement

“What’s the Paul Martin Centre?”

o Can you identify between Union event or ResLife event? Sometimes they

mention “IRC” or not

6

o More targeted emails – too many emails are being sent

o Variety of communication methods is best; not just emails

Social media is best?

Email sent to your phone – automatically

o When you go on WLUSU.com, what do you look for?

Elections. Easy to find.

Fourth End: COULD DO BETTER!

o Economic Environment Cognizant and Responsive to Student Needs

o Way that students define it:

o Financial need

o Scholarships more accessible

o Bursaries more accessible

o Laurier needs to do a better job of promoting financial aid

o How to spend your money; what does OSAP mean; how to be financially

responsible

o Training with economic goals in mind

o More workshops / open forum / financial fair

Changes?

o “You’re doing a good job”

o Student-led initiatives allow one to connect to others better

o Direct connection with students; peer-to-peer help

o Rather listen to a students’ experiences as opposed to a person getting paid

to talk about what our experiences should be like

o 4th

year student more helpful than academic advisors – they complain too

much – high school councilors are better

o Orientation Week – more students to talk about programs – better

connection in this sense

o Teacher evaluations – need to have more depth to them

More comprehensive

What if the Union had a “rate your prof” program

In the future, how can we engage with you?

o If you wanted to get in contact with anyone: WLUSU.com (good answer)

o Remind them that we’re here! They forget about us often


Attendance: WLT

First End: What does it mean to you?

o Making sure student voices are heard from bigger powers; outside of our

control

Second End: What does it mean to you?

o SAFE: Campus is safe already; Emergency lights are fine

o We have Foot Patrol and it’s effective

o EMPOWERING: Allowing students to get involved

o Have relationships with other people

o Do you feel that you can effect change? Yes

7

o WLT Provides this

o Opens up doors to programming

o Activity and empowering starting in high school

Third End: What does it mean to you?

o Events are generally the same each year

o How to get people involved? Could be more methods; not sure how to do

it

o Lead by example mentality

o Active, long-term interest

o Depends on the person if one will be active

o Does this get in the way of your schoolwork? What can help? Not

necessarily; Advisors help provide time management coordination. They

are very lenient when it comes to schedule. Finding a balance is

extremely important.

Fourth End: What does this mean to you?

o Want students to get the most out of education without finances being a

barrier

o Food plan is a massive economic burden

o Food plan is good nonetheless

o Is variety of food good? Yes.

o Don’t like that you have to get a meal plan

o DH can be open past 7:30pm

o Terrace might not be an alternative – “Don’t want to eat Harveys every

day”

o People default on DH more than Terrace

o Offering cheaper events - we’re doing a good job of this. Finances are not

a barrier to students’ unions event

Need to talk to students who are paying their way through school

Do Ends Meet Your Needs

o Do you think there should be a new End or service?

o More marketing; summarize meetings on WLUSU.com – delegate the task

o Getting first years more involved in political side of WLUSU

o Streaming meetings – more inclined to watch

It would be worth doing!

o Rumour Mill: “What’s Everyone Hawking About”

o Letter to the Directors – Video put online with Updates

o Use more social media – videos

o What’s the best way to convey information to you?

o Market Research – no more than 10 minutes – incentive needs to be there

o T-shirts for directors

APPENDIX B: ORGANIZATIONS

What is ends policy to you?

8

-Policy documents not clear for average student.

What do you think of End 1?

-Internal advocacy is good, but external is tough to see, not sure how involved WLUSU

is.

-Students know we advocate but students don’t know what we advocate for. The word

gets used a lot but students can’t name any ways the WLUSU has advocated for students.

“Advocacy” needs to be more clearly defined.

-It’s impossible for students to get everything they want, but they are getting a lot.

-Food pricing needs to be better. Concordia’s People’s Potato. KW’s urban harvester.

Farmers market expansion.

-WLUSU should focus more on sexual assault, it should be on the same level as mental

health and other initiatives.

-University has never done anything to protect students in Northdale.


-It’s a great goal but always done in theory. Initiatives are misguided like more security

cameras. Lack of trans policy, gender neutral washrooms, free self defense classes.

Funneling money into many avenues doesn’t work. More of a proactive approach to

safety than reactive is needed.

-Doesn’t feel WLUSU should focus solely on the campus. The bubble should be viewed

as going one, two, three blocks around the campus.

-LSPIRG anti-oppression training. Perhaps reaching out to diversity groups for other

forms of training.

-WLUSU should be more discerning when it comes to promotional materials.

-Turret security is lacking


-If you provide a safe and empowering space, you will have more diversity within that

space and more opportunities. End 2 and 3 seem to be connected.

-For students who don’t enjoy the O-Week experience the WLUSU is not supporting

alternative experiences. It has turned students off of Laurier as a school, not just

WLUSU.

-Activities largely focused on the extrovert student, active outgoing social students. Not

many opportunities available for introverted students.

-Ride the Pony game needs to stop.


-Bring back Wilf’s $5 meals. Many students can’t afford to go to Wilf’s and pay $12 for

food and a drink. These cheaper alternatives also provide opportunities for social

interaction some argue.

9

-Statue of Wilfrid Laurier questionable, fundraising efforts questionable (student phone

bankers) because some of the initiatives the money goes to is suspicious. WLUSU should

have advocated on these issues.

-More transparency when it comes to where students’ money is going.

-Bookstore issues, textbook issues, need to be resolved and prices brought down.

-OSAP doesn’t help to cover internet costs for students, which forces them to come on

campus which may not be the best thing for some students.

Final Thoughts?

-Keep going with focus groups because limited attendance isn’t justification for no longer

providing these opportunities.

-Mass LBP. A consulting firm in Toronto which works with municipalities regarding

engagement and outreach. New best practices we may not even be thinking about.

-WLUSU clique needs to be broken down, the voices heard are those of the students who

are already involved.

APPRENDIX C: Brantford

End One: Advocacy and Representation

Advocacy for students and services; forward student interests in the community

(comfortable)

With the university: keep students up to date with what’s going on- WLUSU is

the voice of the students- if one student has a concern, everyone might have a

concern; make goals of university and students work together

End Two: Safety and Empowerment

SAFETY

Big for Brantford campus; sometimes unsafe

Foot Patrol – people don’t feel comfortable taking Foot Patrol

Comfortable: Reasonable number of hours, spaces for interaction, inclusive

atmosphere, fitting in, expression, building strong characteristics

Not feeling safe is a barrier to getting a complete education

Student leadership is highly based on inclusion, collaboration, and team work

Internal safety- for example, cutting down fighting in sports. If someone is not

properly licensed to run an event or a sport, the safety of individuals is

compromised; ensure that this resonates throughout the campus

If a bar was owned by the university/union, would you feel safer? Yes.

o Usually more scrutiny on public institutions

University should provide information as soon as possible

Communication from university is needed

EMPOWERMENT

Support

10

Communicating with everyone to let them know that they can get involved

Building more comfort with events; open doors to feel included


Trying to get other communities involved in WLUSU

Is WLUSU programming targeted towards one demography? Hawk team might,

Foot might, etc.

WLUSU is viewed as a social atmosphere; what about those who are studious?

It is getting better; Hawk team is providing better types of programming

Target commuter students + aboriginal students for programming; remain

cognizant of their needs

Trial and error

Target students in the first year to get involved

Icebreakers to encourage more options

Brantford O-Week – get involved fair is problematic and cumbersome

More interactive mechanisms may be needed

Strategy to your communication

Hiring process needs to have a human component to it; how do you get a feel of

the person coming in?

Brantford wants to make its own decision for hiring; what works for Brantford

may not work for Waterloo and vice versa

End Four: Economic Environment

Businesses on campus do not benefit students on campus that much

Events are cost efficient, but we could rehash budget to cater to new students

Finding healthy food options on campus; Williams is expensive for healthy food

Even though students have apartment style residence, they tend to eat out a lot.

Diversity in options and cost is needed

Goal: What WLUSU does should be reflective of a students’ minor budget –

should be responsive to this.

Is cost a barrier? Prices on campus are fair. Not a major concern.

What else could we do? Parking. Help resolve this. Revitalize a one-card system

for parking (as it hasn’t been mentioned since the population has increased)

Communicate student discounts for parking + eco-friendly parking spaces

Investigate whether students really need parking – look into accessible parking

spaces

Parking, however, isn’t a major issue, but it can be attended to

Do you feel that the Ends meet your needs of what the organization can provide to

enhance your student experience?

Within safe and empowering – collaborative student leadership should be

highlighted- make sure it’s multicampus, too.

More transparency; financial information should be open

Hard to find documents + hard to find minutes

11

LBSU needs to be combined/collaborated with WLUSU.com (Harmonized

marketing strategy will be placed here)

24 hour quiet study space; perhaps designate space for specifics; there is enough

study space, however.

More space in the study space (so, better allocation of resources, seating and table

space)

Use classrooms for study space when they’re not occupied- communicate this to

students (without having to book it out) – could be a logistical problem (might

cause distruptions)

Library resources – more of this – but this is being attended to by Senate

Changes?

What can WLUSU do to engage with students more?

More communication

Clarify what we’re doing with BOD Focus Groups

Social media

Putting posters up + TVs (very effective on campus)

“Information Session” and “Focus Group” sound boring- need a good marketing

strategy

Need to go into a students’ face

Be more interactive in group settings

More transparency – where the money is going

Have better advertising of board meetings

Hashtag campaign

Board should latch onto already existing initiatives

Do issue campaigns work?

Always focus on students who may not care (or are not in the clique)

Awareness is key

Brainstorm new name:

BOD Squad?

Improvements for the future?

Other Thoughts?

Engagement with first years + commuter students: Too much conflict- hard to go

to an event and then commute somewhere;

o More daytime activities

o If you don’t meet someone during O-week, you’re left out

To: Board of Directors 2011-12 Chris Walker, Chair of the Board Nick Gibson, President & CEO Sean Madden, VP University Affairs CC: John Fraser

Kyle Hocking,Cameron McGregor, Ted Brown, Alisha Mallory, Jordan Ammendolia BCC: Board of Directors-elect 2012-13

Mike Onabolu, President-Elect

Regarding Senator & Governors Outreach Committee Directors and President Gibson, The Undergraduate Student Senator, Governors and Director Outreach Committee has determined that the scope of the committee is too vague. Further it would be impossible to implement through the powers of the Board of Directors without contractually breaking the Operations Agreement or infringing on Management Groups working relations with the Board of Directors. Base on the previous statements, the Committee recommends the Board to pass the primary scope of the committee (to have the undergraduate student Senators and Governors meet with the Students’ Union frequently) to the Students’ Union President’s Office. (The Committee assumes this will probably the scope of the VP: University Affairs.) However, it is up to the Management Group chooses what kind of method the Students’ Union wants implement with respect to Wilfrid Laurier University’s academic and governance bodies. The Directors do not need to be apart of this committee, if that is Management Group’s decision, however the mutual feeling is that the Board of Directors should be given some kind of occasional updates since they indirectly represent the undergraduate students. The Committee does not expect the current Management Group will be able to implement something constructive before April 30th. It further recommends the incoming Board of Directors and incoming President to follow up on this. Sincerely,

Sunny Chan WLUSU Director

Chair of “the Committee”

Chris Walker Chair of the Board & Chief Governance Officer Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union 75 University Ave. W., Waterloo, ON, N2L 3C5 Tel: 519.884.0710 ext. 3114 Email: [email protected] Website: www.wlusu.com


CC: Nick Gibson; President & CEO

Date: March 23rd, 2012

Re: EL 2h Review

Directors, After considerable discussion, the EL 2h Review Committee comprised of Directors Chudnovsky, Dotto, Habtemichael, Papanastasiou and I are pleased to present the Board with the following proposed amendment to EL 2h – Emergency Executive Succession. The committee was tasked with differentiating between an expected and unexpected absence of the President. The proposed amendments are designed to identify actions the Chief Executive Officer is supposed to take to prevent the loss of the President’s services in either scenario. The intention for this executive limitation is for the CEO to provide a recommendation as to how to minimize the interruption in service. However, it will always be the Board’s decision as to what to do in the case of a partial or full loss of the President’s services. Respectfully Submitted,

Chris Walker Chair of the Board & Chief Governance Officer Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union

Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Board of Directors EL 2h – Emergency Executive Succession

_______________________________________________________________

In order to protect the Board from the sudden loss of President services, the President shall not fail to ensure that the VP: Administration and the General Manager are sufficiently familiar with Board and President issues and procedures to enable either to take over with reasonable proficiency as an interim successor.

Emergency Executive Succession 1. In order to protect the board from the sudden and unexpected loss of the President’s

services, the President shall not allow the Vice President Finance and Administration or the General Manager to be unfamiliar with governance and operational issues or unprepared to take over with reasonable proficiency as interim replacement until the President returns or a more permanent replacement is determined by the board.

Anticipated Interruption in Service 2. In order to protect the board when the President takes an expected or planned leave

of absence (LOA), whether short term or long term, full or partial, the President shall not allow the Board to be:

a. Unaware of the LOA in advance of the leave , b. Unfamiliar with the President’s reason for the LOA, including any conflicts of

interest, a.c. Unaware of the President's interpretations to mitigate or avoid the conflicts of

interest, and minimize interruptions in service with proficiency including the naming of an interim or partial President and CEO.



CC: Chris Hyde; CRO, Jesse Finn; ACRO, Jordan Epstein; Director-Elect


Re: Post Elections Review

Directors, The Post Elections Review Committee of Directors Habtemichael, Oberle, Desson, Director-Elect Epstein, ACRO Jesse Finn, CRO Chris Hyde, and I are pleased to present the Board with this report. The Committee is proposing amendments to EL 2l, GP 2c, the elimination of GP 2g3, GP 2g4, and the creation of GP policies General Meetings and Elections Appeals and Chief Returning Officer Constraint. The purpose of the proposed amendments to the elections system are to streamline how the WLUSU operates in this regard and to eliminate spending an unnecessary amount of Board time and resources on the election process. Additionally, further changes have been proposed to reduce the likelihood of any conflict of interest of directors or the President. Many of the proposed amendments are the result of certain elections policies being incorporated into either executive limitations or governance processes. The addition of a committee structure for General Meeting and Elections Appeals is designed to make the appeals process more transparent to candidates and review all elections policies created by the CRO to ensure compliance with the Chief Returning Officer Constraint. The purpose Chief Returning Officer Constraint is to clearly articulate the values of the Board that must be incorporated into the election process and remove the burden of operating the election process from the Board. The intent is for the Chief Returning Officer to propose all elections and referenda policies to the Board as evidence to demonstrate compliance for the applicable GP policy. It is recommended that if accepted, these amendments be reviewed upon completion of the 2013 Annual General Meeting to ensure that the goals of these changes have been accomplished. Respectfully Submitted,


General Meetings and Elections (EL #2l)

Policy Type: Executive Limitation Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: February 12, 2007

Date of Last Amendment: <none>

Page 1

The President shall not risk the integrity or the independence of WLUSU elections or any general meeting of the membership. Additionally, the President will not influence the voting membership, also known as the ownership of WLUSU. The President will not:

1. Allow any WLUSU affiliated club, organization, or service that received WLUSU resources to passively or actively participate in the electoral process.

2. Use WLUSU resources beyond what is determineddeemed reasonable by the Board. 3. Allow WLUSU Corporate to express an opinion on any candidate or referendum

affiliated with the Annual General Meeting or participate in elections. 4. Allow executive level employees to participate in any general meeting in a way that

will compromise the quality or integrity of their position or the WLUSU. 5. Influence the hiring or work of the Chief Returning Officer, Assistant Chief Returning

Officer, or any member of the elections committee. 4.6. Allow the Board to be unaware of any actual or anticipated noncompliance with

regards to this policy immediately upon realizing such noncompliance or anticipated noncompliance.

Board Members’ Code of Conduct (GP #2c)

Policy Type: Governance Process Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: February 12, 2007

Date of Last Amendment: February 10, 2012

Page 2

The Board commits itself and its members to ethical, businesslike and lawful conduct, including proper use of authority and appropriate decorum when acting as Board members.

1. Members must have loyalty to the ownership, uncontested by loyalties to staff, other organizations, and any personal interest as a consumer.

2. Members must avoid conflict of interest with respect to their fiduciary responsibility. a. There must be no self-dealing or business by a member with the

organization. Members will annually disclose their involvements with other organizations, with vendors, or any associations that might be or might reasonably be seen as being a conflict;

b. When the Board is to decide upon an issue about which a member has an unavoidable conflict of interest, that member shall withdraw without comment not only from the vote, but also from the deliberation; and

c. Board members will not use their positions to obtain employment or an elected position in the organization for themselves, or anyone else family members or close associates. A Board member must not become a paid employee of the WLUSUresign from their position prior to becoming a paid employee of the WLUSU. A Board member must declare a conflict of interest upon submitting their nomination for an elected position and remove his/herself from Board deliberation until the conclusion of any general meeting.

3. Board members may not attempt to exercise individual authority over the organization.

a. Members’ interaction with the President or with staff must recognize the lack of authority vested in individuals except when explicitly Board-authorized;

b. Members' interaction with public, press or other entities must recognize the same limitation and the inability of any Board member to speak for the Board except explicitly stated Board decisions; and

c. Except for participation in Board deliberation about whether the President has achieved any reasonable interpretation of Board policy, members will not express individual judgments of performance of employees or the President.

4. Members will respect the confidentiality appropriate to issues of a sensitive nature. 5. Members will be properly prepared for Board deliberation. 6. Members will support the legitimacy and authority of the final determination of the

Board on any matter, irrespective of the members’ personal position on the issue. 7. Directors shall see that all Board documents and filings are accurately and timely.

a. Policies will rigorously follow Policy Governance® principles; b. Bylaw elements necessary for legal compliance and for consistency with the

principles of Policy Governance® will be known to the Board; and c. Requirements for format, brevity and accuracy of Board minutes will be

known to the Chair of the Board.

Board Members’ Code of Conduct (continued) (GP #2c)

Policy Type: Governance Process Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: February 12, 2007

Date of Last Amendment: February 10, 2012

Page 3

8. A member is considered to have resigned if he/she is absent from 50% of meetings in any two month period.

Board Committee Structure – Elections Policy Review Committee (GP #2g3)

Policy Type: Governance Process Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: September 12, 2008

Date of Last Amendment: September 23, 2011

Page 4

Board Committee Structure – Elections Policy Review Committee (GP #2h4)

Products:

1. Review the existing elections policies and procedures; 2. Identify and list areas of immediate and long-term concern; 3. Develop policy and procedure alternatives with brief justifications; 4. Provide updates at each Board Meeting; and 5. Prepare a final report for the Board’s review.

Authority:

1. The term of this Committee shall expire following the adoption of the Elections Policy Review Committee’s recommendations by the Board of Directors.

Composition: Membership shall be:

a. Three Board members elected by the Board; b. One Brantford Campus Councilor; c. Chair of the Board; and d. Chief Returning Officer, who shall sit ex-officio with a voice but no vote.

Time frame:

1. This Committee must present its final report to the Board of Directors on or about the 10th of November annually.

Board Committee Structure – Post Election Review Committee (GP #2g4)

Policy Type: Governance Process Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: November 21, 2008


Page 5

Board Committee Structure – Post Elections Review Committee (GP #2h7) Products:

1. Review elections policies and procedures following the completion of the election; 2. Identify policy and procedure-related problems that occurred in the election; 3. Develop recommendations to address those problems; and 4. Prepare a final report for the Board’s review.

Authority:

1. The term of this committee shall expire following the submission of the Election Policy Review Committee’s final report to the Board.


a. Two Board members to be elected by the Board; b. A member of the Appeals Committee; c. A Director-Elect of the Board; d. Chief Returning Officer, ex-officio; e. Head Deputy Returning Officer (Brantford), ex-officio; f. President and CEO, ex-officio; and g. Chair of the Board, ex-officio.

Time Frame:

1. This committee must present its final report to the Board of Directors on or about the 25th of March annually.

Policy Type: Governance Process Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: November 21, 2008


Page 6

Board Committee Structure - General Meeting and Election Appeals (GP #2g??)

Products:

1. A Board Direct Inspection of GP #2i consisting of all elections and referenda policies. 2. Review all appeals received from candidates and party chairs based on the following

criteria: a. The infraction of the candidate or party chair reasonably falls within the spirit of

the elections policies; b. The demerit(s) must have been applied by the Chief Returning Officer in good

faith; c. The demerit(s) issued is proportional to the infraction; d. The Chief Returning Officer demonstrated due diligence to inform the candidate

or party chair of the elections policies and their implications; e. The infraction could have reasonably been prevented by the candidate or party

chair. 3. Rationale will be provided for all decisions rendered. 4. All appeals will be settled prior to the disclosure of the results. 5. Any demerit(s) resulting in a disqualification will be automatically appealed.

Authority:

1. This committee shall have all authorities over GP #2i – General Meetings and Elections that would normally be given to the Board during the campaign and elections period. However, this committee may not amend GP #2i without Board approval.

2. This committee shall give all candidates, party chairs, or their respective agents the opportunity to present their appeal in writing or in person.

3. All meetings of this committee shall be properly documented and shall remain confidential.

4. This committee may accept an appeal, reject it, or reduce the demerit(s) issued.


a. The Chief Governance Officer who shall be the committee Chair; b. The Chief Returning Officer (or designate) who shall sit ex-officio; c. Two Members of the Board not running for an elected position; and d. Two students at large who are unaffiliated with any candidate or party chair.

*Quorum shall be defined as the CGO, the CRO, and three of the four voting members. The CGO will only vote in the case of a tie.

Time Frame:

1. All appeals shall be settled by the committee within twenty-four (24) hours upon being received by the Chief Governance Officer.

2. This committee shall submit the GP #2i Direct Inspection Report by the last meeting in November annually.

3. This committee shall expire at the conclusion of the Annual General Meeting.

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.59", Hanging: 0.2", Space After: 0 pt,Numbered + Level: 4 + Numbering Style: 1, 2,3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Alignedat: 2" + Indent at: 2.25"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.73", Space After: 0 pt, Numbered + Level: 5+ Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 2.5" + Indent at: 2.75"

Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.59", Hanging: 0.2"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.59", Hanging: 0.2", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level:2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Tabafter: 1" + Indent at: 1"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.5"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.59", Hanging: 0.2", Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indentat: 0.5"

Board Committee Structure - General Meeting and Elections Appeals (GP #2g??)

Policy Type: Governance Process Date of Approval by the Board of Directors:

Date of Last Amendment: Policy Type: Governance Process

Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: Date of Last Amendment:

Page 7

1.4. This committee may be created and used ad hoc in the case of a General or Special General Meeting.

Policy Type: Governance Process Date of Approval by the Board of Directors:

Date of Last Amendment: Policy Type: Governance Process

Date of Approval by the Board of Directors: Date of Last Amendment:

Page 8

Chief Returning Officer Constraint (GP #2i)

The Board has an obligation to ensure that all general meetings and elections are executed with the highest level of integrity and, avoids any potential conflict of interest or undue influence. The Chief Returning Officer shall be responsible for interpreting this policy. The Chief Returning Officer will ensure that:

1. All WLUSU bylaws and board policies are complied with. 2. All candidates and party chairs are made aware of all elections policies, procedures,

and the nomination process in a way that is not unnecessarily lengthy or complex. 3. Voting and general meeting information is accessible to all members of the WLUSU:

a. Members shall have thirty-six (36) hours to vote; b. Voting shall be done electronically using the WLUSU online elections system; c. On-campus voting stations will be made available to members; and d. Candidates shall have the opportunity to provide a platform to be made

available on wlusu.com and the online elections system. 4. All candidates and party chairs shall be treated fairly, consistently, and equitably by

the Chief Returning Officer. 5. The general meeting and election processes and information is promoted to the

electorate in an impartial way. 6. All members of the WLUSU are made aware of their eligibility to participate in the

election process. 7. Candidates and party chairs are held responsible for all material and personnel

associated with their campaign. As such, the Chief Returning Officer shall have a workable mechanism to identify campaign personnel.

8. All conduct and material associated with general meetings and elections shall be reflective of the Laurier Student Code of Conduct and be free of libel, slander, inflammatory comments, or behavior that is unbecoming of the WLUSU. a. The Chief Returning Officer shall determine a demerit system to discipline

candidates including, but not limited to, disqualification of candidates or party chairs from the general meeting or the forfeiture of election expenses.

9. All candidates and party chairs shall have equitable access to resources. a. Candidates and party chairs shall be compensated for any costs incurred during

the election for all approved material.

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 0.54", Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style:1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left +Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Numbered + Level:2 + Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.75" + Indentat: 1"







[Type text]

WHEREAS the Board of Directors is responsible for appointing an auditor to

review the financial status of the WLUSU.

BE IT RESOLVED THAT KPMG be appointed as the auditor for the Wilfrid

Laurier University Students’ Union for the May 1, 2011 - April 30, 2012 fiscal

year.

Chris Walker Chair of the Board & Chief Governance Officer

Wilfrid Laurier University Students' Union Tel: 519.884.0710 ext. 3114

Email: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]




Date: March 23, 2012

Re: WLUSU Referenda Report

Directors, As per the Board request on November 25, 2011, I am submitting the report on all Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Annual General Meeting referendum questions from 2006 to 2012. This report will evaluate the current status of all referenda results and determine if there are any errors as to how they have been applied. In addition, this report will include recommendations to assist in preventing any future errors from occurring. Upon reviewing all the referenda results, the WLUSU Fee Schedule for 2012-13 and the Laurier Incidental Fee Chart, all applicable fees will be applied correctly for September 2012. However, there are a few discrepancies with clarity of questions and availability of results, most notably from the 2010 Annual General Meeting. Areas of Concern:

Referendum questions are not always explicit as to when, how, and to whom they are applied. Additionally, increases of current fees are not appropriately communicated to the membership as they often don’t include the new total but rather just the increase. In order to avoid any confusion either in the application of fees or uncertainty among the membership, it is critical to be concise and provide all applicable information.

In 2008, the membership approved the firm of Collins Barrow to be the auditor for the 2008/2009 year; however the WLUSU employed the services of KPMG instead. Legally, the Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act states that the financial statements must be presented at the annual general meeting, but approval of the statements and the auditor falls within the purview of the board of directors. Therefore, although the WLUSU did not comply with the results in this instance, the Board is not bound to this decision. Legal responsibilities for referenda that are not initiated by or not intended to bind the WLUSU are not clear. The WLUSU has hosted referenda questions in the past on behalf of other organizations such as LSPIRG, WLUSP, WUSC, and WLU. Once these referenda results are disclosed, they are no longer within the jurisdiction of the WLUSU which makes them difficult to overturn in a subsequent general meeting or ensure accountability.


Recommendations: The Board should create policy that articulates what must be included in all referendum questions. The WLUSU Constitution permits the Board to determine all business to go before the membership and can therefore disallow any question from the membership or the WLUSU Corporate to go to any general meeting. This authority should be used sparingly and only in cases of extreme necessity. This allows the organization to protect itself from questions that may put the organization at risk or do not fit within the purview or values of the WLUSU. To comply with new Ontario legislation, the Board should approve the auditor’s statements prior to October 31st annually and make them available to the membership online or hard copy by request no less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the annual general meeting. Additionally, the Board should approve the auditor for the current fiscal year prior to conclusion of that year.

All referenda questions that are submitted by external parties should be supported by another organization who will assume responsibility for the application of the results. The WLUSU should continue to host referenda for other parties as a way to ensure transparency significant membership support of other initiatives, however, in each case the WLUSU Board should establish an agreement with the respective party that limits any liability including full compliance with all WLUSU elections and referenda policies and any other restrictions the Board deems necessary. This process should also be articulated in Board policy. The WLUSU Board should approve the minutes of all general meetings at the next appropriate board meeting in the form of a report from the Chief Returning Officer to ensure that all results are properly documented and implemented.

In conclusion, all referenda results since 2006 demonstrate that the WLUSU has appropriately applied all fees and by-law amendments. However, in order to prevent any issues from arising in the future and to maintain a high degree of transparency and accountability to the membership, the Board must develop appropriate policy reflective of the aforementioned concerns. Respectfully Submitted,



2006 “Do you support the changes to By-Law 24 as presented?” Yes: 1264 No: 795 “Be it resolved that the 2004-2005 Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Audited Financial Statements be passed as presented.” Yes: 1787 No: 368 “Be it resolved that Collins Barrow be appointed the auditor for the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union for the 2005-2006 fiscal year.” Yes: 1873 No: 270 Specific to Waterloo Students “Do you support the creation of the Laurier Students’ Public Interest Research Group and an associated refundable fee of $4.75 per term, which may be adjusted by the cost of living expense?” Yes: 1225 No: 1184 Specific to Brantford Students "Do you support the Wilfrid Laurier University Students Union negotiating a mandatory bus pass, for all full time Laurier Brantford students, with Brantford Transit?" Yes: 276 No: 76 Specific to Brantford Students "Do you support a mandatory fee of up to $60 per term, which may be adjusted by cost of living increases to pay for a bus pass for all full time Laurier Brantford Students?" Yes: 159 No: 182

2007

“Are you in favour of the changes proposed in Working By-Law 26 to be ratified as the WLUSU By-Law and, thus replace the existing By-Law 25?” Yes: 1530 No: 448 “Are you in favour of appointing Collins Barrow as the WLUSU auditor of the 2006/2007 financial year?” Yes: 1657 No: 448


“Are you in favour of the audited financial statements as presented by the 2005/2006 WLUSU auditor Collins Barrow?” Yes: 1636 No: 313 Specific to Brantford Students “Are you in favour of a mandatory fee of $40.00 per semester, adjusted for the cost of living every year, to provide and unlimited transit pass for all full-time undergraduate students at Laurier's Brantford Campus?” Yes: 201 No: 123

2008 “Do you support the removal of any reference to ‘undergraduate’ students from the Letters Patent and By-Laws of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union so that the Students’ Union can represent all students?” Yes: 1897 No: 473 “Are you in favour of appointing Collins Barrow as the WLUSU auditor of the 2008/2009 financial year?” Yes: 1810 No: 269 “Are you in faviour of the audited financial statements as presented by the 2007/2008 WLUSU auditor Collins Barrow?” Yes: 1687 No: 337 “Do you support a new Undergraduate Faculty Student Association Fee’ of $15.00 per fulltime student per term or pro-rated per part-time course, that will replace the defunct STEP ($25.00/term), ASAP ($15.33/term), and SBE Levy Fees ($15.00/term), to support Faculty oriented student associations and events and to provide resources for other student clubs?” Yes: 1684 No: 436 Specific to Brantford Students “Do you support a new ‘Dining Facility’ Fee in the amount of $15.00 per full-time student per term or pro-rated per part time course for all Brantford Campus students, which will be levied until September 1, 2018, to support the construction of a new dining facility?” Yes: 213 No: 37

2009


“Do you support the term of office for Directors of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ union Board of Directors being increased from one (1) year to two (2) years beginning in the 2010-2011 academic year?” Yes: 908 No: 1801 “Do you approve the following changes to the Constitution (by-law) of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union:

a) Adding the Chief Operating Officer (General Manager) to the list of Corporate Officers; b) Changing the dates specified for the Annual General Meeting (AGM) to allow for

elections to occur in late January; and c) Permitting the Board of Directors to make a one-time change to both its size and

composition pending research and stakeholder consultation. These changes would be made public by September 15th, 2009 and subject to approval by referendum at the 2010 AGM.”

Yes: 2007 No: 576

“Do you approve of replacing the current Green Fee of $0.50 per semester with an Eco Fee of $5 per semester, indexed annually to inflation, collected by the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union and distributed to the Wilfrid Laurier University to fund the creation and operation of a Wilfrid Laurier University Ecological Sustainability Office?” Yes: 1847 No: 908 Specific to Waterloo Students “Do you approve of a new ‘Pool Improvement Fee’ of $10 per semester per full-time Waterloo Campus Undergraduate student, pro-rated per course for part-time students, to finance critical repairs to the pool? This fee will commence in September 2009 for a duration of 5 years.” Yes: 1539 No: 828 Specific to Brantford Students “Do you approve of a $25 per semester fee, charged to all Laurier Brantford students, for the construction of a dining facility? This fee will replace the previously approved fee of $15 per semester and will commence in September 2009 for a duration of ten (10) years? Yes: 121 No: 282 Specific to Brantford Students “Do you approve of a $37.50 per semester fee charged to all Honours Contemporary Studies students and an $18.75 per semester fee charged to all BA/B.Ed students? Both fees will be pro-rated for part-time students on a per-course basis and apply only to Laurier Brantford Students. All monies received would be evenly split between:


a) An endowment fund designed to facilitate initiatives undertaken by the Contemporary Studies Association; and

b) Initiatives aimed at enhancing the educational experience of students currently in the Contemporary Studies program.”

Yes: 78 No: 195

2010 "Be it resolved that the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union audited financial statements for the May 1, 2008 - April 30, 2009 fiscal year be approved as presented." Yes: No: (Data unavailable) "Be it resolved that KPMG be appointed as the auditor for the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union for the May 1, 2009 - April 30, 2010 fiscal year." Yes: No: (Data unavailable) “I am in favour of a $0.75 per half increase (up to 4 credits per semester) in the Wilfrid Laurier University Student Publications fee, effective September 1st, 2010.” Yes: 1096 No: 878

2011 "Be it resolved that the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union audited financial statements for the May 1, 2009 - April 30, 2010 fiscal year be approved as presented." Yes: 3701 No: 793 "Be it resolved that KPMG be appointed as the auditor for the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union for the May 1, 2010 - April 30, 2011 fiscal year." Yes: 3787 No: 732 "Do you support the creation of a fee for a student refugee sponsorship program (WUSC) of $1.00 per half-credit to a maximum of 4 half-credits per term to increase the number of exiled/refugee students given the opportunity to pursue post-secondary education at Laurier?" Yes: 3185 No: 1755 Specific to College of Business and Economics Students “Do you support the creation of a new specific School of Business and Economics Faculty Based Activity fee of $4.25 per half credit to a maximum of $21.25? School of Business and


Economics students would no longer be required to pay the existing Faculty Based Fee of $3.75 per half credit.” Yes: 1018 No: 418 Specific to Waterloo Students "I favour the renewal of the Student Life Levy and continued enhancement of student life at WLU through a project fund for special initiatives, including but not limited to, an Athletic Complex Fitness Centre expansion. In order to accomplish such enhancements, I favour the renewed fee assessment for a Student Life Levy commencing May 1st, 2011, on a non-refundable per 0.5 credit basis of $8.00, increasing 2.25% each year, until expiry on April 30th, 2021." Yes: 2506 No: 1991 Specific to Brantford Students "I favour the renewal of the Student Life Levy and continued enhancement of student life at WLU through a project fund for special initiatives. In order to accomplish such enhancements, I favour the renewed fee assessment for a Student Life Levy commencing May 1st, 2011, on a non-refundable per 0.5 credit basis of $8.00, increasing 2.25% each year, until expiry on April 30th, 2021." Yes: 177 No: 314

2012 "Whereas: The Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Dental Plan premiums require adjustment based on inflation so as to remain viable; otherwise, elimination of the Health and Dental benefits would be required. Do you support stabilizing the Wilfrid Laurier University Undergraduate Health & Dental Plan with a year-by-year adjustment in premium based on inflation? Any other adjustments beyond inflation must be approved by a subsequent referendum.” Yes: 2575 No: 1979 “Do you approve the following changes to the Constitution of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union? (Article 3 – Members’ Meetings)” Yes: 3526 No: 719 “Do you approve the following changes to the Constitution of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union? (Article 4 – Board of Directors)” Yes: 3698 No: 586


“Do you approve the following changes to the Constitution of the Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union? (Article 5 – Power of Directors and Article 6 – Directors’ Meetings)” Yes: 3587 No: 710 Specific to College of Science Students “Do you agree to allow the faculty of Science Students’ Association to raise the Faculty Based Fee (an incidental fee), for undergraduate students with a program offered by the Faculty of Science, from the current rate of $3.75 per 0.5 credit per term with a maximum fee of $15.00 per term indexed to inflation; to $6.00 per 0.5 credit per term with a maximum fee of $21.50 per term indexed to inflation effective September 1, 2012?” Yes: 275 No: 636

Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Board of Directors GP #2???- General Meetings

The Board is responsible for the oversight of all general meetings. The Board shall ensure due process and implementation of all business of the WLUSU to be conducted at general meetings.

1. All processes and procedures during general meetings will comply with all applicable laws and the WLUSU Constitution.

2. The Board will be the final arbiter of the reasonableness of all referendum questions. a. A committee of the CGO, the CEO, and the COO shall review and present all

referendum questions to the Board for approval no later than the last board meeting of December annually.

3. The Board is responsible to, in a timely manner, inform the members of their right to submit referenda which shall be received no later than five (5) days prior to the last Board meeting in December annually.

4. All referendum questions shall include the following: a. Date of implementation, b. Eligible voting members, c. Any associated costs and inflationary costs and how they are to be applied, d. Any impact on previously approved referenda.

5. The Board shall approve the minutes of all general meetings at the next appropriate meeting of the Board in the form of a report of all results provided by the Chief Returning Officer.

6. The Board shall make the auditor’s statements available to the membership no less than twenty-one (21) days prior to the starting date of the annual general meeting.

a. The Board shall approve the auditor’s statements of the current fiscal year no later than October 31 annually,

b. The Board shall appoint an auditor for the following fiscal year no later than April 30 annually.

7. The Board shall review all submissions for referenda submitted by external organizations.

a. External organizations will be responsible for the application of all referenda results,

b. Only submissions from a legitimate governing authority or representative thereof will be eligible to submit referenda on their behalf,

c. All external organizations will be subject to WLUSU elections and referenda policies and any other restrictions deemed necessary by the Board.

WLUSUStudent Fee Schedule for 2012-13

CPI Fees CIP + 1 New Rate PT Rate Verify2.30% 2012 2013 2013 PT X 4

FNCC WATERLOO 26.84 102.30% 27.44 6.86 27.44SAC WATERLOO 31.24 102.30% 31.96 7.99 31.96SLL WATERLOO PER COURSE - NO MAXIMUM (INCREASE 2.25 8.20FACULTY ASSN CC 15.00 N/A 15.00 3.75 15.00SBSS FACULTY ASSN CC PER COURSE - MAXIMUM OF 5 COURSES 4.25POOL IMPROVEMENT 10.00 N/A 10.00 2.50 10.00SUSTAINABILITY - WATERLOO 5.00 N/A 5.00 1.25 5.00WUSC FEE - WATERLOO 4.00 N/A 4.00 1.00 4.00WUSC FEE - BRANTFORD 4.00 N/A 4.00 1.00 4.00BRANT FOOD SERVICE 15.00 N/A 15.00 3.75 15.00SUSTAINABILITY - BRANTFORD 5.00 N/A 5.00 1.25 5.00HEALTH PLAN 104.41 102.30% 106.81 FALL ONLYDENTAL PLAN 98.00 102.30% 100.25 FALL ONLYUPASS - WATERLOO ???? PER AGREE WILL ADVISE FOR SEPT 12UPASS - BRANTFORD ???? PER AGREE WILL ADVISE FOR SEPT 12BRANT SAC 31.24 102.30% 31.96 7.99 31.96BRANT BLD 40.96 102.30% 41.92 10.48 41.92

WLUSU Fees Estimate for 2012-2013.xls 3/1/2012

Executive Limitation: Policy 2k “Lobbying and Advocacy”

This monitoring report for Executive Limitations Policy 2k “Lobbying and Advocacy” is presented in accordance with the monitoring schedule set forth by the Board of Directors. I certify that the information contained in this report is true and represents compliance with a reasonable interpretation of all aspects of the policy unless specifically stated otherwise. Sincerely,

Nick Gibson President and CEO Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union 23 March 2012.

(Board Policy is indicated in bold typeface throughout.) The President will not:

1. Operate without encouraging WLUSU staff, directors or committees to engage the University, or the local or provincial government on important issues which:

a. Are directly related to WLUSU ends; b. Have been discussed thoroughly with wide consultation; and c. Have been reviewed with the WLUSU President

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “encourage” as informally and formally notify about advocacy opportunities; “committees” to include both the Internal and External Affairs Committees in Waterloo, and the External Affairs Committee in Brantford; “engage” to mean create discussion through various communication means with said officials. I interpret “wide consultation” to mean setting up structures and opportunities for any and all students to contribute their feedback on the issues they are concerned about. I interpret “reviewed” to mean that they are consistent with the advocacy strategy of the WLUSU President and CEO (herein called: “the WLUSU message”). OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when: 1) Both volunteer and non-volunteer opportunities exist for students to provide their feedback.

2) Volunteer opportunities exist for students to advocate the WLUSU message.

3) The WLUSU President and other members of the Management Team sit on University committees, or committees in the greater Kitchener-Waterloo/Brantford areas and beyond.

4) The WLUSU message is clearly determined, with the help of our partner organizations (OUSA and CASA) when relevant. 5) All WLUSU official presentations, delegations, or statements of position to University, government, or others are approved by the President. EVIDENCE: 1. In Waterloo, the Internal and External Affairs Committees provide volunteer opportunities for students who are interested in helping shape, and advocate for WLUSU message. The University Affairs Department, with the help of the Marketing Department, has implemented the text-to program called “Fix my Laurier (FML)” which will allow students to air their concerns instantaneously. In Brantford, the External Affairs Committee provides volunteer opportunities for students who are interested in helping shape, and advocate the WLUSU message.

2. The EVP: Brantford has regular meetings with university officials on the Brantford campus and sits on several ad hoc committees, the VP: UA sits on several external committees in our partner organizations and in the Kitchener-Waterloo community (including being the OUSA President), and the VP: Services sits on the Sustainability Committee for WLU, and a mental health strategy group. The President and CEO sits on numerous University committees, both ad hoc and standing committees, including (but not limited to) a SAOPA committee, Brantford Athletic Complex Project Committee and the Multi-Campus Governance Committee on Administration of the University.

3. The WLUSU message has not strayed from those of our partner organizations (OUSA and CASA) when relevant, and has maintained consistency with our ends. Further, all presentations, delegations, or statements of position to the University, government or others have been approved by the President.

I report this section as COMPLIANT.

2. Allow the Board to be without any vital information pertaining to a change in status, tone, or temperament of any official negotiations or advocacy efforts

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “status, tone, or temperament” to mean that the negotiation or advocacy effort has shifted away from a trajectory that a reasonable person could deduce at the beginning of the process or since the last update. I further interpret “official negotiation or advocacy efforts” to apply to any discussions which will substantially alter the conditions of the student experience and/or the WLUSU’s operating practices, or may lead to negative media coverage. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when: 1) When the Board is regularly informed of any ongoing official negotiations or advocacy efforts. EVIDENCE: 1. Evidence can be provided by Board Direct Inspection. I report this as COMPLIANT.

3. Operate without encouraging WLUSU staff or committees to engage the federal government, where there is a direct provincial educational program connection, and where the appropriate external advocacy organizations are made aware.

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “engage” to mean create discussion through various communication means with federal officials; “direct provincial educational program connection” as something determined in partnership with our federal partner organization CASA; “appropriate external advocacy organization” is our federal partner organization CASA. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when: 1) There are opportunities for students to engage in our federal partner organization CASA.

2) Our Director of Policy Research and Advocacy and the VP: UA are active in CASA.

3) CASA is made aware of any official advocacy efforts with federal officials. 4) CASA lobby materials and resources are thoroughly utilized and consulted when communicating with federal officials. EVIDENCE: 1. The External Affairs Committee operates on both WLU campuses.

2. Both the DPRA and/or the VP: UA have been in attendance at all major CASA events and strategic sessions.

3. The President, the VP: UA, the Director of Policy, Research and Advocacy, the CGO and a Director all attended the Annual CASA Lobby Conference in Ottawa in mid-November. 4. More evidence can be provided through Board Direct Inspection. I report this as COMPLIANT.

4. Interfere with the dissemination of any written WLUSU position to government or media from the Board as a whole or any director on behalf of the Board, unless said communication violates acceptable WLUSU standards of conduct, practice, regulations, or policies.

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “interfere with the dissemination” as preventing the use of WLUSU resources or personnel from releasing public statements from the Board. I further interpret “acceptable WLUSU standards of conduct, practice, regulations, or policies” to mean the violation of any Board level policy, long-standing WLUSU practices (or prudent new practices), or otherwise violating basic fiduciary duties including, but not limited to, bona fide, proper purpose, conflict of interest and duty of care. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when: 1) WLUSU resources or personnel are not prevented from releasing public statements from the Board, unless the Board is not in compliance with the above interpretation. EVIDENCE: 1. The Board has released an “Opinion Column” to the Cord which is consistent with the above interpretation. 2. The Board has not released or attempted to release any other statement of position on other topics.

I report this as COMPLIANT.

5. Allow the dissemination of an official position that may be controversial or questionable to government or media

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “dissemination of an official position” to be the communication through the available means of the corporation of a message that is said to be representing the position of the corporation. “Controversial or questionable” is a position that may be damaging or perceived to be damaging to the corporation. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when: 1) No official positions which are damaging or perceived to be as such are released without Board approval. EVIDENCE: 1) The most recent positions relate to WLUSU’s position on the U-Pass Program in Waterloo, Food Services in Waterloo, and policies in the Registrar’s office for all of Laurier. These items and others can be provided upon request for Directors. I report this as COMPLIANT. GLOBAL POLICY STATEMENT: The WLUSU shall address all structural educational injustices and call for systemic change that benefits all students of Wilfrid Laurier University whom we represent. From time to time WLUSU shall advocate with official representatives of Wilfrid Laurier University, members of federal, provincial and municipal government, elected officials or make public statements through the media. Understanding that advocacy is based upon mutual collaboration and the forging of partnerships, WLUSU and WLUSU representatives shall advocate with due regard to the spirit of cooperation, respect and cordiality. INTERPRETATION: I interpret “educational injustices” to mean policies or practices which are unmistakably not in the favour of students; “systemic change” to mean long-term, sustainable policy adjustments with appropriate jurisdictions. I further interpret “mutual collaboration and the forging of partnerships” as attempting to find synergies with university, community and government partners; and “spirit of cooperation, respect and cordiality” as the avoidance of unnecessary conflict which may damage future relationships without adequate rationale. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when: 1) All other sections are in compliance. EVIDENCE: 1. See previous. I report this as COMPLIANT.

Executive Limitation: Policy 2a “Treatment of Consumers”

This monitoring report for Executive Limitations Policy 2a “Treatment of Consumers” is presented in accordance with the monitoring schedule set forth by the Board of Directors. I certify that the information contained in this report is true and represents compliance with a reasonable interpretation of all aspects of the policy unless specifically stated otherwise.

Nick Gibson President and CEO Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union 23 March 2012.


1. Operate member focused facilities and member focused services that do not:

a. Measure member satisfaction; or b. Provide opportunity for member feedback.

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “operate member focused facilities and services” to mean all WLUSU operated businesses, services, and programs offered to undergraduate students of WLU on all campuses. I interpret “measure member satisfaction” to mean that WLUSU is intentionally collecting data which articulates the level of approval with WLUSU facilities and services. I interpret “provide opportunity for member feedback” to mean that WLUSU will provide opportunities to members to give feedback on their experience with our facilities and services which we will use for operational planning and improvement. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) WLUSU business operations (Wilf’s, Turret, William’s Fresh Café, and Golden Grounds) provide consumers the opportunity to give feedback about their experience in an accessible way.

2) WLUSU programs and services provide consumers the opportunity to give feedback about their experience.

3) WLUSU can produce statistical analysis of feedback from consumers from business operations and programs and services (and uses this for operational planning).

EVIDENCE: 1. The Turret survey has just completed and can be seen through Board Direct Inspection. Other surveys are in progress. I report this section as NON-COMPLIANT. ROADMAP TO COMPLIANCE:

1. Once all surveys are completed, this report will be re-submitted by the new administration.

2. Use methods of collecting, reviewing, transmitting, or storing client information that fail to protect against improper access to material

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “fail to protect against improper access” to mean that those who are not authorized to view or use this material are provided access or obtain access to such information. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) Only authorized personnel have had access to client/consumer information which is confidential or proprietary in nature.

EVIDENCE:

1. All WLUSU Network users are authorized by password to secure server. And WLUSU does not hold client/consumer data which is confidential or proprietary in nature.

I report this section as COMPLIANT.

3. Operate facilities with insufficient accessibility INTERPRETATION: I interpret “insufficient accessibility” to mean that WLUSU facilities are not in compliance with Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act (AODA), 2005 or Occupational Health and Safety Act, 2000. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) WLUSU is in compliance (does not have any unmet criteria) with the above statutes with respect to its facilities on all campuses.

EVIDENCE: 1. We have no notices of unmet criteria. More information can be provided through Board Direct Inspection. I report this section as COMPLIANT.

4. Operate member focused facilities and member focused services without a clear and well communicated customer service policy.

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “operate member focused facilities and services” to mean all WLUSU operated businesses, services, and programs offered to undergraduate students of Wilfrid Laurier University. “Customer service policy” means that all WLUSU operated businesses, services, and programs will have policies aimed at defining member experiences, guiding paid and unpaid staff performance, and governing customer satisfaction measurement at all WLUSU operated businesses, services, and programs. “Clear and well communicated” means that staff will be trained and evaluated according to the customer service policy and that businesses, services, and programs of WLUSU will make a clear vision for customer experience available for all members. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) All member focused facilities and services of the WLUSU can provide evidence of: a. A Vision for Customer Experience b. Customer Service Policy c. Evidence of training for unpaid and paid staff in Customer Service Policy d. Open access to Vision for Customer Experience, Customer Service Policy, and response

data both at the physical location of the business, service, or program and elsewhere.

EVIDENCE: 1. Items for Business Operations can be provided through Board Direct Inspection. 2. The Student Departments do not have these right now, but they are in development. I report this section as NON-COMPLIANT. ROADMAP TO COMPLIANCE: 1. A report will be re-submitted during the new administration who will be leading the development of Customer Service Policy for the Student Departments.

5. Allow consumers to be unaware of this policy or operate without a way for persons to be heard who believe that they have not been accorded a reasonable interpretation of their rights under this policy

INTERPRETATION: I interpret “allow consumers to be unaware of this policy or operate without a way for persons to be heard” means that WLUSU will provide clear evidence of the opportunity that members, employees, and customers have to provide case based feedback on customer experience at WLUSU facilities, services or programs directly to staff, including, but not limited to the General Manager without fear of reprisal or retribution. I interpret “a reasonable interpretation of their rights under this policy” to be an interpretation of the policy which would pass the “reasonable person” test: would a reasonable person come up with this interpretation. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) All WLUSU facilities and services provide evidence of the prominent placement of tools which consumers can use to find out about this policy and provide feedback

2) EL#2b, section 2 is in compliance.

EVIDENCE: 1. This can be provided through Board Direct Inspection. I report this section as COMPLIANT. With respect to interactions with beneficiaries (“those who benefit from WLUSU’s work”), the President shall not cause or allow conditions, procedures, or decisions which are unsafe, untimely, undignified or unnecessarily intrusive. INTERPRETATION: I interpret “interactions” to mean any communication or form of contact. “Beneficiaries” are anyone who benefits from WLUSU work including, but not limited to, WLU students on each campus. “Conditions” are the state of any operations which are part of the beneficiaries’ experience, “Procedures” are any policies or series of actions, and “decisions” are any operational choices rendered. “Unsafe” means putting the individual or groups at risk, “untimely” means having no regard for timelines and circumstances affecting beneficiaries, “undignified” means unnecessarily putting the corporation’s reputation at risk, “unnecessarily intrusive” means sacrificing individual privacy without reasonable purpose even if it is consistent with federal and provincial legislation. OPERATIONAL DEFINITION: Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) All other sections are in compliance. EVIDENCE: 1. See above. I report this section as NON-COMPLANT. ROADMAP TO COMPLIANCE: 1. Please see the steps above for the specific steps toward compliance.

Hiring Practices – Unpaid Staff Monitoring Report EL #2j

I hereby present the monitoring report on Executive Limitations # 2j policy “Hiring Practices – Unpaid Staff” according to the schedule set out. I certify that the information contained in this report is true and represents compliance with a reasonable interpretation of all aspects of the policy unless specifically stated otherwise. Signed, Nick Gibson President and CEO Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union 6 October 2011


1. Operate without written procedures that: a) Delineate special circumstances under which deviation from policy would be acceptable b) Are readily available and easily understood by hiring staff and applicants c) Delineate situations in which an applicant would not be considered for a position; and d) Follow a well-defined and widely recognized practice

CEO INTERPRETATION: I interpret ‘written procedures’ to mean the hiring policies within the Administration Department Procedural Manual which deals with unpaid staff. “Delineate special circumstances” is interpreted to mean that all instances that require special exception to the above listed policies are clearly articulated in the hiring policies within the Administration Department Procedural Manual. I interpret “readily available” to mean that the Administration Department hiring policies are accessible to anyone looking for the information. “Understood” is interpreted to mean that the policies are clear and resources are in place to ensure comprehension. “Delineate situations in which an applicant would not be considered for a position” is interpreted to mean that all applicants who are not eligible for a position are clearly defined in hiring policies in the Administration Department Procedural Manual. “Well defined” is interpreted to mean that the hiring process is fully outlined in the written policies and “widely recognized” is interpreted to mean that the hiring process (behaviour-based) is used by other hiring professionals outside of the WLUSU and considered a best practice. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) There are written hiring procedures outlining the above in the Administration Departmental Procedural Manual.

b) Research can be provided to explain the merits of behaviour-based hiring practices. EVIDENCE: 1. Hiring Policies within the Administration Department Procedural Manual can be provided

upon request. 2. Research on behaviour-based hiring processes can be provided upon request. I report this as COMPLIANT.

2. Operate without protection against improper access to publicly discernible identifiable information CEO INTERPRETATION “Fail to protect against improper access” is interpreted to mean that students not involved in the hiring process are able to view and collect confidential hiring information. “Publicly discernible identifiable information” is interpreted to mean that the information available defines student’s identification as recognized by others. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) Policy exists to protect applicants’ personal information b) Access to personal information is limited to select individuals for purposeful use c) Procedures exist for applicants to plea that their personal information was used

inappropriately and/or inappropriately accessible EVIDENCE: 1. The only time information is publicly available is when applicants sign up for interviews. At this time they are only asked to sign up using the last 4 digits of their student number so that they cannot be identified. 2. All correspondence from the Administration Department is through individual emails, personalized letters or phone calls. All hiring committee volunteers are required to BCC applicants whenever sending emails to multiple applicants. 3. Personal information is only collected at the beginning of each interview. This is necessary to verify the validity of each applicant and all volunteers involved in Hiring are required to sign confidentiality contracts. 4. All information on wlusuhr.com is only accessible to the Vice-President Administration or Associate Vice-President Operations, Hiring Committee Coordinator (on each campus) and Website Administrator. 5. More information can be provided upon request. I report this as COMPLIANT. 3. Allow a procedure that is unnecessarily complex or restrictive given the responsibilities of the position.

CEO INTERPRETATION “Procedure” is interpreted to mean the hiring process that the applicant goes through. “Unnecessarily complex or restrictive” is interpreted to mean that the process creates needless barriers for applicants. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) The expectations of the applicant in the hiring process are proportionate to the role they are applying for, and the competition existing for the available position.

EVIDENCE: 1. Hiring Policies allow the flexibility for the committee to forego interviews; general volunteers are not expected to create proposals, etc. Refer to the Hiring policies in the Administration Department Procedural Manual for more (which can be provided upon request). I report this as COMPLIANT. 4. Operate without taking into account previous formal performance appraisals or documented disciplinary action generated by the WLUSU. CEO INTERPRETATION “Formal performance appraisals” refers to any previous performance appraisal that is completed about the applicant on wlusuhr.com and “documented disciplinary action” is interpreted to mean any Behaviour Reports related to the applicants past performance kept on record by the Vice-President: Administration. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) Hiring policy formally integrates performance appraisals in a systematic fashion in order that is considered in hiring decisions.

I report this as NON-COMPLIANT. Road-Map to Compliance:

1) The Administration Department will undergo a comprehensive audit regarding use of our performance appraisals currently.

2) A principled approach will be undertaken to determine a new process which will be compliant.

3) Using the determined principles, the framework and policy for the integration of performance appraisals will be established and tested.

4) The recommendation is that this Monitoring Report be re-submitted in March 2012 giving time to develop and test new procedures.

5. Operate without providing personalized feedback to applicants that will assist them in future applications.

CEO INTERPRETATION “Personalized feedback” is interpreted to mean comments regarding the strength and areas of development for a particular applicant. “Future applications” is interpreted to mean any further hiring process that the applicant completes within the WLUSU, and beyond. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) All applicants have access to individualized feedback to assist them in future applications.

EVIDENCE: 1. Any applicant may contact the VP: Administration to obtain personal feedback regarding their application. 2. Each Hiring Representative communicates to the Applicant that they may contact the Vice-President: Administration for feedback. I report this as COMPLIANT.

6. Allow applicants to be unaware of this policy or to provide a way to be heard for persons who believe that they have not been accorded a reasonable interpretation of their rights under this policy.

CEO INTERPRETATION “Allow applicants to be unaware of this policy” is interpreted to mean that applicants are not made formally informed that there are written procedures in place to protect their rights. “Provide a way to be heard” is interpreted to mean that all applicants are made aware of who to speak to about the hiring process for appeals. “Reasonable interpretation of their rights” means that applicants are aware of the implications of hiring policies for them. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1) A formal appeal process exists. 2) There are multiple strategies to explicitly inform applicants of hiring policy and the

appeal process.

EVIDENCE: 1. Hiring Policy in the Administration Department outlines an appeal process for applicants. 2. The Regret Letter for Executives and Coordinators communicates to applicants that there is an appeal process and they may contact the Vice-President: Administration for more information. 3. Each Hiring Representative communicates to the Applicant that they may contact the Vice-President: Administration if they feel their rights have been violated 4. The Vice-President: Administration is available to meet with anyone who they have been treated unfairly.

I report this as COMPLIANT. GLOBAL POLICY STATEMENT With respect to the hiring of unpaid staff, the President shall not allow conditions that are unfair, disrespectful, prohibitive, biased or ambiguous. INTERPRETATION The above statement is defined by the Board in subsequent sections of this executive limitation. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

1. All subsequent sections of this policy are in compliance. I report this as NON-COMPLIANT.

This monpresenterigorouslcertify thwith a re Signed,

Chris WaChair of tWilfrid La March 23 Policy Wadvise thimplicatiCommitt CGO’s InCommittgovernanof policy deemed OperatioComplian

a) Ob) C

n Evidence

a) CCInR

Gov

nitoring repoed in accorday self‐monithat the inforeasonable int

alker the Board anaurier Unive

3, 2012

Wording GP 2he staff. Comons for Boartees will norm

terpretationees should bnce objectiveor strategic appropriate

onal Definitionce will be dOnly standingommittees wecessary to

e ommittees campus Govenspection; Steview; Ends

vernance Pr

ort for Goverance with thtor and ensumation is deterpretation

nd Chief Goversity Studen

2f‐1. Board Cmmittees ordrd deliberatimally not ha

n be created foes with resprecommend

e to do so ac

on demonstrateg advisory cowill only inclthe committ

created by ternance; Owtudent Senas Review; Po

rocess Policy

rnance Procee monitorinure complianeveloped witn of all aspec

vernance Offnts’ Union

Committees adinarily will aon. In keepinave direct de

or the specifect to directdations. Comcording to th

ed when: ommittees olude staff metees’ manda

he Board thwnership Linktors and Gost‐Elections

y 2f “Board C

ess Policy 2fg schedule ance with its othout prejudcts of the po

ficer

are to help tassist the Bong with the Balings with c

fic purpose ot inspectionsmmittees wilhe objective

or ad hoc issuembers or wate.

is year inclukage; Pre‐Elevernors OutReview; EL #

Committee

f “Board Comapproved byown policiesdice or bias, licy unless s

the Board doard by prepaBoard’s broacurrent staff

of helping ths on monitoll only work e of the com

ue committewill request s

de: Brantforections Revitreach; El #2#2h Review;

Principles”

mmittee Priny the Board os. On behalf and represepecifically st

o its job, notaring policy ader focus, Bf operations.

he Board accring reports with staff omittee.

ees are creastaff support

rd Campus Cew; EL #2d D2c & #2f Revi; EL #2i Direc

nciples” is of Directors of the Boardents compliatated otherw

t to help or alternativesBoard .

complish or the creatperations if

ted. t when

Council; MulDirect iew; GP #2e ct Inspection

to d, I nce wise.

s and

tion it is

ti‐

n.

b) Committees have only included the following staff members as a resource to the respective committees: President & CEO; EVP: Brantford; Director of Policy Research and Advocacy; Marketing and Communications Manager; General Manager.

I report this as COMPLIANT. Policy Wording GP 2f‐2. Board Committees may not speak or act for the Board except when formally given such authority for specific and time‐limited purposes. Expectations and authority will be carefully stated in order not to conflict with authority delegated to the President. CGO’s Interpretation Committees will not make statements of position or give updates to the public or media on behalf of the Board prior to rendering a report to the Board as to the status of the committee’s report. Committees will not be tasked to monitor, direct, or instruct non‐Board employees except in cases when fulfilling Board objectives. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) Committees have not made public statements outside of Board meetings. b) Operational staff members have been made aware of this policy and are given the

ability to make any issues be known to the CGO. Evidence

a) No committee has made public statements on behalf of the Board prior to notification during Board meetings.

b) No such complaint has been received by the CGO from any staff members. I report this as COMPLIANT. Policy Wording GP 2f‐3. Board Committees cannot exercise authority over staff. The President works for the full Board, and will therefore not be required to obtain approval of a Board Committee before an execution of an action. CGO’s Interpretation Committees do not have the authority to instruct or direct the President without the consent of the entire Board. Furthermore, committees will not approve of Presidential actions but will focus on advising or making recommendations for Board decisions. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) The President has not communicated a directive from a committee beyond a request for information to the CGO.

b) The President has not received permission from a committee that would normally require a motion by the Board.

Evidence

a) No such complaint has been received by the CGO from the President. b) No action has been taken by the President through committee approval.

I report this as COMPLIANT. Policy Wording GP 2f‐4. Board Committees are to avoid over‐identification with organizational parts rather than the whole. Therefore, a Board Committee, which has helped the Board create policy on some topic, will not be used to monitor the organizational performance on that same subject. The Board retains responsibility and authority to monitor organizational performance on the same subject. CGO’s Interpretation Ad hoc committees cease to exist when they have delivered their final report and recommendations to the Board at which point any accepted recommendations become the responsibility of the entire Board to monitor according to the regularly accepted monitoring procedure. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) Committees do not continue to operate after they have delivered their final report. b) The Board follows up with committee recommendations in accordance to Policy

Governance Principles. Evidence

a) All committees created thus far have not delivered their final report to the Board. b) All approved recommendations from committees such as the EL #2d Direct Inspection

Committee have been dealt with in accordance to GP and BMD policies. I report this as COMPLIANT. Policy Wording GP 2f‐5. Committees will be used sparingly and ordinarily in an ad hoc capacity. CGO’s Interpretation Committees will normally be used for specific issues that the Board deems necessary to go through committee deliberation. Advisory committees will also be allowed to provide ongoing support to the Board. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) The majority of committees will be ad hoc. b) Standing committees will only be created as advisory committees regarding ownership

linkage.

Evidence

a) The following committees are ad hoc: Multi‐Campus Governance; Pre‐Elections Review; EL #2d Direct Inspection; EL #2c & #2g Review; GP #2e Review; Student Senators and Governors Outreach.

b) The following standing advisory committees are: Brantford Campus Council; Ownership Linkage.

I report this as COMPLIANT. Policy Wording GP 2f‐6a. Board Committees shall elect a member to act as Chair whose responsibilities shall include: Delivering all reports to the Board. CGO’s Interpretation Committee Chairs shall update the Board at every meeting as to the status of the committee and create and present a final written report for the Board upon the committee’s completion of its objective. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) Committee Chairs have been included in the agenda and have delivered an update at all Board meetings.

b) Committee Chairs have produced a written final or midterm report as applicable and presented it to the Board.

Evidence

a) All committees have been included under the ‘Committee Updates’ section of the agenda.

b) All reports given to the Board by committees have been produced by the Chair including the EL #2d Direct Inspection Committee, and the Pre‐Elections Review Committee.

I report this as COMPLIANT. Policy Wording GP 2f‐6b. Board Committees shall elect a member to act as Chair whose responsibilities shall include: Ensuring that the committee does not exceed its mandate as directed by the Board. CGO’s Interpretation Committee Chairs shall ensure compliance with the committee description including products, authority, composition, and timeline. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) Committee Chairs strictly enforce and ensure compliance with that particular committee’s description including reporting timelines, authority, products, and composition.

Evidence

a) Committee authority, products, and composition have been consistently observed by committees and are all in compliance.

I report this as NON‐COMPLIANT. Reason Although composition, products, and authority have been adequately observed by committees, timelines have not always been strictly adhered to. In many cases, ad hoc committees have not been given strict timelines by the Board. The CGO has also been very involved in a lot of committee administrative tasks and the facilitation of meetings which has delayed a lot of work. Recommendation The Board should work to follow and enforce more strictly timelines in future ad hoc committee and directors make committee work a priority in their schedule. Additionally, all future Board committees should not be chaired by the Chair of the Board to reduce CGO workload and increase leadership opportunities for Directors, unless there is a particularly good reason for the CGO to oversee the committee as deemed necessary but that committee. Policy Wording GP 2f‐6c. Board Committees shall elect a member to act as Chair whose responsibilities shall include: To ensure that proper and thorough minutes are taken and delivered to the CGO. CGO’s Interpretation Committee Chairs shall ensure that committee proceedings are documented and sent to the CGO. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) The CGO receives minutes or a report for every meeting from every committee. Evidence

a) All minutes and reports from all ad hoc committees meetings and the ownership linkage committee have been received and electronically filed by the CGO.

I report this as NON‐COMPLIANT. Reason

The Brantford Campus Council has yet to submit any meeting minutes to the CGO but has provided the Board with reports when specifically requested. Recommendation Because the Brantford Campus Council will not exist next year, this specific issue will no longer exist but to ensure proper filing and institutional memory, the Board should hold all committee chairs responsible for this policy section. Policy Wording GP 2f‐7. This policy applies to any group that is formed by Board action whether or not it is called a Committee and regardless of whether the group includes Board members. It does not apply to Committees formed under the authority of the President. CGO’s Interpretation Any committee, council, group, or task force created by the Board shall be subject to this policy. Operational committees created by the President are not subject to this policy. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) This policy is observed by all committees created by the Board. Evidence

a) All Board created bodies have been monitored within this policy.

I report this as COMPLIANT. Policy Statement Wording GP 2f. Board Committees, when used, will be assigned to help the Board do its job, to reinforce the wholeness of the Board's job and so as never to interfere with delegation from Board to President. Operational Definition Compliance will be demonstrated when:

a) All sections of this policy are reported as compliant. Based upon the previous, I report GP #2f as NON‐COMPLIANT.





Re: Transition of Staff

Directors, Due to the high rate of annual turnover particularly at the executive level, the WLUSU must ensure that there is consistency in institutional memory and that problems do not become systemic. Additionally, the WLUSU must ensure that there is a way to maintain best practices and process. As such, it is appropriate for the Board to develop policy so that the President must adequately inform all new employees about any and all relevant information for their position. It is therefore my pleasure to submit a proposed executive limitation policy on transition of staff to accomplish this objective. Respectfully Submitted,


Wilfrid Laurier University Students’ Union Board of Directors EL 2m – Transition of Staff

_______________________________________________________________

In order to protect the board from the annual cycle of student leadership turnover through elections, the President shall not allow institutional knowledge or practices to be unprotected or lost.

The President will not:

1. Leave office without ensuring that the new President has (at least) the following information and support:

a. Training plans/systems on roles and responsibilities of paid and unpaid staff;

b. Results of an internal and external environmental scan; and c. Input from staff regarding their previous transition

experiences. 2. Allow staff to be unaware of, or un-consulted about, changes that

would affect their work in order to protect staff from the annual cycle of student leadership turnover through elections.

WLUSU BOD March 23-2012 Agenda Package

Documents

Transcript of WLUSU BOD March 23-2012 Agenda Package